Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Richard Heathfield <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 09:55:16 +0000
Ian Collins said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Which C99 compiler are you using? If the answer is "gcc", why bother toNever use it. I use Sun Studio, which is approaching C99 conformance.
claim that you have a C99 compiler? (gcc is /not/ a conforming C99
compiler.)
Okay, fine - just as long as you realise that most people /don't/ have a C99
compiler.
The Solaris headers have also migrated to C99.
Neither of the compliers I have will compile it, gcc or Studio. Studio
Maybe if you can explain the usefulness to mankind of the code, I might
give it a go....
Like much code posted here, its usefulness to mankind is that it
illustrates a point about the language. In this case, the point is that
the claim "I can copy-paste your C code and compile it as C++" is
demonstrably false.
barfs over asm.
gcc compiles it just fine here, using:
-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wformat-nonliteral -Wcast-align -Wpointer-arith
-Wbad-function-cast -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-declarations -Winline -Wundef -Wnested-externs -Wcast-qual
-Wshadow -Wconversion -Wwrite-strings -Wno-conversion -ffloat-store -O2
If Studio barfs over asm, it's not a conforming C implementation, C90 /or/
C99. asm is a perfectly normal C identifier in user namespace.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
.
- References:
- Simplicity has a future
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Tomás
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Tomás
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Keith Thompson
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Tomás
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Harald van Dijk
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Ian Collins
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Simplicity has a future
- From: Ian Collins
- Simplicity has a future
- Prev by Date: Re: Simplicity has a future
- Next by Date: Re: Simplicity has a future
- Previous by thread: Re: Simplicity has a future
- Next by thread: Re: Simplicity has a future
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|